You and many others. But, unfortunately, something has to give and increasing sales tax seems to be a 'better' way of increasing revenues without hacking and slashing specific groups/sectors (not to say that won't happen as well).

What I hate about it is that it's a precedent setting move. Once this goes up, regardless of how things improve in the future, the chances of it coming down will be slim... IMHO.

You really think so? Lower taxes are the easiest sell there is. Most people would sign their souls to the Liberals if they promised to lower them again when oil prices rise.

While income taxes are preferable to sales taxes, I'm glad the government has at least looked at the revenue side of the equation. David Cochrane mentioned on Twitter that they may be revamping tax brackets as well, which is a great thing.

You and many others. But, unfortunately, something has to give and increasing sales tax seems to be a 'better' way of increasing revenues without hacking and slashing specific groups/sectors (not to say that won't happen as well).

What I hate about it is that it's a precedent setting move. Once this goes up, regardless of how things improve in the future, the chances of it coming down will be slim... IMHO.

I'd rather see an overhaul of how government is run to reduce spending rather than raise taxes to largely maintain status quo.

I'm sure there are areas where money could be saved or services simplified, but the idea that there are vast sums that could be saved through "efficiencies" has never been backed up. Sure, you can get some wages off the books through privatization, but don't you think there's a cost? Ontario privatized its highway snow clearing. They saved something like 0.05% of their budget but service suffered drastically and accidents worsened. We still end up paying for the service, but people on the bottom are even further hurt, and wages and services often suffer. Like, how do you think the private sector is able to provide a similar service while raking in profit? Service levels or compensation are lowered, pay at the top balloons, and the government still ends up paying through subsidies to private business.

Now is a great time to be in debt, to fund services and employ people. We're only worse for it because we've been down for so long. When oil prices recover hopefully our politicians can find a way to make a decent profit, and put some away for the next time.

And "balanced budget legislation" is a political ploy. You can't tie the hands of a future government by definition. If anyone promises that one they are pandering; it's unenforceable.

I'm sure there are areas where money could be saved or services simplified, but the idea that there are vast sums that could be saved through "efficiencies" has never been backed up. Sure, you can get some wages off the books through privatization, but don't you think there's a cost? Ontario privatized its highway snow clearing. They saved something like 0.05% of their budget but service suffered drastically and accidents worsened. We still end up paying for the service, but people on the bottom are even further hurt, and wages and services often suffer. Like, how do you think the private sector is able to provide a similar service while raking in profit? Service levels or compensation are lowered, pay at the top balloons, and the government still ends up paying through subsidies to private business.

Now is a great time to be in debt, to fund services and employ people. We're only worse for it because we've been down for so long. When oil prices recover hopefully our politicians can find a way to make a decent profit, and put some away for the next time.

And "balanced budget legislation" is a political ploy. You can't tie the hands of a future government by definition. If anyone promises that one they are pandering; it's unenforceable.

If we have programs that aren't working and employees who do not have enough work to justify a job then why not cut? Government isn't a make work project.

As for taking on debt we may soon surpass paying out $1 billion a year to service our debt. How can that be realistic? I believe we are spending more on servicing debt now then we are spending on education. That's not sustainable. Government needs to figure out why we are spending so much more per capita then other provinces and why outcomes aren't better despite the extra cost.

I'm sure there are areas where money could be saved or services simplified, but the idea that there are vast sums that could be saved through "efficiencies" has never been backed up. Sure, you can get some wages off the books through privatization, but don't you think there's a cost? Ontario privatized its highway snow clearing. They saved something like 0.05% of their budget but service suffered drastically and accidents worsened. We still end up paying for the service, but people on the bottom are even further hurt, and wages and services often suffer. Like, how do you think the private sector is able to provide a similar service while raking in profit? Service levels or compensation are lowered, pay at the top balloons, and the government still ends up paying through subsidies to private business.

Now is a great time to be in debt, to fund services and employ people. We're only worse for it because we've been down for so long. When oil prices recover hopefully our politicians can find a way to make a decent profit, and put some away for the next time.

And "balanced budget legislation" is a political ploy. You can't tie the hands of a future government by definition. If anyone promises that one they are pandering; it's unenforceable.

Well we have very different fundamental views on government and the economy...so this will just spin into and endless argument.

I just love the sense of entitlement. We have that a bit on the federal level as well - but the idea that a guy doing seasonal work in Gallants and paying a pittance in property taxes is not getting what he's paying for cracks me up. Sure buddy your $300 property tax is keeping the province afloat.

They don't pay enough taxes in their lifetimes to cover the cost of the hydro pole by the house. It's all subsidized by the urban areas. Yes, we all pay, but the urban areas are the only places where enough people pay for services that can be more affordably provided to create the tax surplus used to keep everywhere else going.

We have, what, 15 hospitals and 29 clinics. For a province with the population of a small city. We spend about $12,500 per person in provincial expenditures. Every other province is in the $7,000-$9,000 range. It can't go on.

People have to choose: electricity, running water, roads, and government services OR living where Pop did.

__________________Note to self: "The plural of anecdote is not evidence."

I just love the sense of entitlement. We have that a bit on the federal level as well - but the idea that a guy doing seasonal work in Gallants and paying a pittance in property taxes is not getting what he's paying for cracks me up. Sure buddy your $300 property tax is keeping the province afloat.

They don't pay enough taxes in their lifetimes to cover the cost of the hydro pole by the house. It's all subsidized by the urban areas. Yes, we all pay, but the urban areas are the only places where enough people pay for services that can be more affordably provided to create the tax surplus used to keep everywhere else going.

We have, what, 15 hospitals and 29 clinics. For a province with the population of a small city. We spend about $12,500 per person in provincial expenditures. Every other province is in the $7,000-$9,000 range. It can't go on.

People have to choose: electricity, running water, roads, and government services OR living where Pop did.

Preach it buddy.

My question constantly though, is what is the answer? You obviously can't forcibly remove people. So do you just shut down the services? The heartless and pragmatic side of me says yeah, close down a few hospitals and schools. But I don't think any politician is going to do that.

So what is the solution? I honestly don't know, aside from relocation. Have any politicians in the past put forward any reasonable alternatives?

The solution is certainly that when Nippers Harbour votes en masse for relocation, the Province says yes. Even if moving them costs a few million more than keeping them going for 10 years where they are. Such measurements don't take into account the symbolic value or the potential benefits those people will bring to their new, larger community.

Beyond that... There's not a lot we can justly do. We can start by regionalizing hospitals and schools. We should be able to service the entire province with 5-10 large hospitals. Not 15. Then we need to have community clinics in regionalized schools. They should be attached like a booze store on a Sobeys. Minimal staff for triage, light treatment, and referral if necessary.

We need to provide an incentive for individuals to move to a town with, say, 3,500 people or more. You should have some financial incentive to move from Goobies to Clarenville.

It's a good time to make big moves. Old folks love moving to the nearest town with a hospital. And these especially rural areas are aging fast.

And then we also need some consideration for heritage. A place like Bonavista needs to survive no matter what. It is who we are.

Beyond that I don't know. But healthcare and education are more than half of our budget. If we can get those working, we will be fine for a generation or more.

__________________Note to self: "The plural of anecdote is not evidence."

Quick question - What happens to Nippur's Harbour if we relocate the residents? Do we burn down the houses, tear up the roads, etc? I'll bet you that the relocated residents assume that they can keep their old houses as summer places and unlike an island, even an old dirt road can get them there, but we will still have road costs. Is the Gov't committed enough to stop that?

I've heard that we came very close to closing Bell Island some years ago. People were paid for their properties etc, but Frank Moores government promised to reopen it if elected and when he did get in sold the properties back to the residents for $1, anyone know if there's any truth to that?